GLDM vs. COST

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) is Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation) is a stock. Over the past 5 years, GLDM returned 17.71%/yr vs 18.59%/yr for COST. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

GLDM vs. COST - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDM achieves a -4.78% return, which is significantly lower than COST's 6.55% return.

GLDM

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -2.33%
• 6M: -8.90%
• YTD: -4.78%
• 1Y: 22.28%
• 3Y*: 28.47%
• 5Y*: 17.71%
• 10Y*: —

COST

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: -6.09%
• 6M: -0.65%
• YTD: 6.55%
• 1Y: -5.04%
• 3Y*: 21.66%
• 5Y*: 18.59%
• 10Y*: 20.64%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GLDM vs. COST - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	-4.78%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	18.10%	1.75%
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	6.55%	-5.39%	39.62%	49.00%	-19.05%	51.82%	32.67%	45.70%	-3.33%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and COST is -0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.04
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2018	0.05

Return for Risk

GLDM vs. COST — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 26
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 31
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 22

COST

COST Risk / Return Rank: 31
COST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
COST Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
COST Omega Ratio Rank: 29
COST Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
COST Martin Ratio Rank: 31

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

GLDM vs. COST - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	GLDM	COST	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.86	-0.26	+1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	-0.23	+1.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	0.97	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.90	-0.30	+1.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.24	-0.71	+2.95

GLDM vs. COST - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 0.86, which is higher than the COST Sharpe Ratio of -0.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM and COST, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GLDM vs. COST - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDM drawdown since its inception was -26.11%, smaller than the maximum COST drawdown of -53.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDM and COST.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDM	COST	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.11%	-53.39%	+27.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.11%	-16.57%	-9.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.11%	-20.74%	-5.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.11%	-31.40%	+5.29%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.40%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.86%	-16.27%	-7.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.42%	-13.36%	+6.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.51%	7.07%	+3.44%

Volatility

GLDM vs. COST - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a higher volatility of 8.29% compared to Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) at 6.92%. This indicates that GLDM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than COST based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDM	COST	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.29%	6.92%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.91%	15.22%	+8.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.58%	19.57%	+8.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.25%	22.85%	-4.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.05%	21.98%	-4.93%

Dividends

GLDM vs. COST - Dividend Comparison

GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while COST's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	0.59%	0.59%	0.49%	2.87%	0.76%	0.54%	3.38%	0.86%	1.08%	4.81%	1.09%	4.06%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDM and COST in my portfolio?

GLDM and COST have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLDM or COST?

GLDM has higher volatility (8.29%) compared to COST (6.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLDM dropped -26.11% vs COST's -53.39%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.86 vs -0.26), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.